About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZALCCT 122
|
|
Motjamela v Stanmar Motors (George) (C357/2024) [2025] ZALCCT 122 (27 November 2025)
THE LABOUR COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN
Not Reportable
Case No: C357/2024
In the matter between:
THABANG MOTJAMELA
(In his capacity as
the Estate Representative of the late
THABISO
MOTJAMELA)
Applicant
and
STANMAR
MOTORS (George)
Respondent
Heard: 24 June 2025
Delivered: 27 November
2025
This
judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties’ legal representatives by email, publication on
the
Labour Court website and release to SAFLII. The date and time for
handing down judgment is deemed to be 10h00 on 27 November
2025.
JUDGMENT
MELAPI, AJ
Introduction
[1]
The applicant, Thabang Motjamela
(Motjamela) brought an unfair dismissal application on behalf of his
late brother, Thabiso Motjamela.
The late Thabiso Motjamela worked
for the Respondent, Stanmar Motors, George, until his untimely death
on 24 February 2024.
[2]
Apart from the application, there is also a
condonation for the late filing of the notice to oppose and the
answering affidavit
which is 14 days late.
Condonation
application
[3]
Although the condonation was not formally
opposed. There is no prejudice demonstrated to Motjamela from what
was a very short delay
and given that it has prospects of success I
see no reason to refuse condonation.
[4]
The Respondent argued the delay was caused
by the confusion caused by the Applicant’s numerous
applications he filed, such
as a review application under case number
C31/2020, which was followed by an application for leave to appeal,
which was refused.
Then a petition to the Labour Appeal Court (LAC)
under case number C09/2024, which was dismissed for lack of prospects
of success.
[5]
The same time the applicant brought the
current review, he had filed a rescission application with the
Constitution Court, such
application is still pending.
[6]
In the same breath, the Applicant has
brought other applications in the High Court of South Africa: Eastern
Cape Division.
[7]
The Respondent only became aware of this
application when the Court gave directions on 14 October 2024.
Review application
Background
[8]
The late Thabiso Motjamela was employed by
Stanmar Motors on 1 July 2014. On or about 7 or 8 May 2014, an
incident occurred, and
as a result respondent suffered damages in the
amount of R46 163.80. This resulted in the dismissal of the late
Thabiso on 12 September
2018.
[9]
At arbitration, the commissioner found the
dismissal substantively unfair and ordered the respondent to pay
compensation of two
months earning at R7 261.80 per month amounting
to R14 523.36.
[10]
On 24 January 2020, Thabiso applied for the
review of the award under case number C31/2020. An application for
the reinstatement
of the review was heard by Leslie AJ, and the
application was dismissed. An application for leave to appeal was
filed on 1 September
2023, which was dismissed.
[11]
On 6 November 2023, the respondent paid to
the deceased R14 532.60, being the compensation awarded by the DRA.
The payment was made
despite the pending petition for leave to appeal
in the LAC.
[12]
On 28 August 2024, a petition for leave to
appeal at the LAC under case number CA 09/2024 was similarly refused,
with an indication
that there were no prospects of success.
[13]
While the matter was pending at the LAC,
the Applicant filed this application on 19 August 2024. On 19
September 2024, he filed
a default judgment against the respondent.
The respondent filed a notice of opposition on 22 October 2024, which
was followed by
an opposing affidavit on 7 December 2024.
[14]
On 5 February 2025, applicant applied to
the Court to cause a subpoena to be issued to the Respondent. On 26
May 2025, Justice Lagrange
issued directives, advising the court
cannot make such an order without giving the respondent an
opportunity to oppose such relief
being granted. Applicant was
directed to deliver an application to compel the compliance with the
subpoena.
Merits of the review
application
[15]
Motjamela raised two grounds of review.
Motjamela argues that the dismissal of his late brother was
both procedurally and
substantively unfair. The Respondent argues
that the unfairness of the dismissal of the late Thabiso Motjamela
was determined at
the Dispute Resolution Centre (DRC) during
arbitration. The same award had not been challenged despite the
review application before
the Labour Court under case number
C31/2020, on application to re-instate the review, an application for
leave to appeal and even
a petition to the LAC.
[16]
The first ground for the review has been
exhausted, and the Court is not empowered to revisit the decisions of
the Labour Court
and Labour Appeal Court.
[17]
The second ground is in respect of
compensation. The applicant is claiming R10 million for harm suffered
by his family as a result
of his late brother’s dismissal. It
is argued by the respondent that the amount claimed changed to R5
million in the leave
to appeal application, which was dismissed.
[18]
The
amount claimed is delictual in nature and falls outside the scope of
the Labour Relations Act
[1]
(LRA). The Applicant falls short of proving the requirements for a
delictual claim. Further even if the delictual claim is proved,
the
deceased’s claim would have prescribed, as the dismissal was in
2014.
[19]
Stanmar Motors argued that since there is a
pending case on the same facts before the Constitutional Court,
therefore this Court
has no jurisdiction.
Costs
[20]
Insofar as costs are concerned, this Court
has a broad discretion in terms of section 162 of the LRA to make
orders for costs according
to the requirements of the law and
fairness.
[21]
The respondent submitted that the
application should be dismissed with costs. He argued that the
application was ill-considered
and should have been withdrawn, but
instead, the Applicant persisted with a meritless application. There
is no reason why the Respondent
should be out of pocket for defending
a meritless application. The respondent insisted that the applicant
should be ordered to
pay punitive costs.
[22]
I invited Mr. Motjamela more than once to
make submissions on the issue of costs, indicating to him that the
Respondent was seeking
a cost order against the applicant. Mr.
Motjamela made submissions to the effect that he is an unrepresented
layperson who invoked
section 34 of the Constitution for the Republic
of South Africa, 1996, to access the court.
[23]
The generally accepted purpose of awarding
costs is to indemnify the successful litigant for the expense he or
she has been put
through by having been unjustly compelled to
initiate or defend litigation.
[24]
In
Public
Servants Association of SA on behalf of Khan v Tsabadi NO and
others
[2]
,
the Court emphasised that:
“…
..unless
there are sound reasons which dictate a different approach, it is
fair that the successful party be awarded her costs.
The successful
party has been compelled to engage in litigation and compelled to
incur legal costs. An appropriate award of costs
is one method of
ensuring that much earnest thought and consideration goes into
decisions to litigate in this court, whether as
applicant, in
launching proceedings or as respondent opposing proceedings.”
[25]
A costs order is a method of ensuing that
decisions to litigate in this Court are taken with due consideration
of the law and the
prospects of success.
[26]
In my view, this is a case where a cost
order is warranted. This is more so as the applicant has litigated in
this Court on a regular
basis. The applicant has filed a review
application which has no merits and where the basic requirements for
an application, such
as the one pursued, were not considered or met.
This application compelled the Respondent to oppose it.
[27]
The applicant came to Court with a
meritless application, which should not have been pursued, and
fairness dictates that the Respondent
cannot be expected to endure
costs defending meritless litigation. Therefore, the respondent is
entitled to its costs.
[28]
In the premises, the following order
is made:
Order
1.
The review application is dismissed.
2.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s
costs on the scale as between party and party.
P. Melapi
Acting Judge of the
Labour Court of South Africa
Appearances:
For the Applicant:
T Motjamela
(Self-represented)
For the Respondent:
Advocate Potgieter
Instructed
by:
Smit Kruger Inc.
[1]
Act
66 of 1995, as amended.
[2]
(2012) 33 ILJ 2117 (LC) at para 176.